Many of of you will recall past discussions on this very subject matter.

From what I read...

Quote:

Many instructors have gotten away from using the term "continuum" to describe appropriate defensive force, and depict it as a wheel instead of a ladder, so as to be less confusing to the public or the jury.

When looking at the force continuum ladder, it's critical to remember that the legitimate defender does not have to start at the bottom level, but instead should key off the level of force presented by the assailant.

_Mas

Another way to look at this, as according to some research, including police, _is that if you program your mind in a 'response ladder' fashion...you will be subjected to much hesitation that can prove deadly.

I've talked with too many people who froze because they weren't sure they could handle the aftermath. That's been known to get folks killed. I've found the people who fully understand the legal, sociological, and psychological aftermath of having had to use deadly force -- AND UNDERSTAND IT TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN HANDLE IT -- don't suffer from that deadly hesitation. That's why I've spent decades incorporating that training along with the shooting elements and the tactical elements.

And this applies to 'karate force' as well. How well do we understand and how well can we handle the aftermath?

I was wondering what the legal repercussions would be if one had to use his concealed weapon (firearm) against a person who only "implies" a weapon, i.e hand in jacket pocket,etc.

A co-worker was carjacked a while back while stopped at a red light. The perp approached and opened the driver's door, and had his hand in his jacket pocket, threatening to shoot if the driver did not get out of the car.

The driver complied, at which time he was pushed to the ground, and the perp jumped into the vehicle and fled. The victim never saw a weapon, but "had reason to believe the suspect was armed".

The weapon here is 'implied' since you never saw it.

Would you be legally justified in running the man down with your car or shoot him? Or if it happened at an ATM machine and you had no weapon...would you be in legal jeopardy if you were to use powerful/destructive karate techniques on the person?

Ayoob responds

Quote:

What you call "implied weapon" comes under what is known at law as a "furtive movement" shooting. In the situation you describe, the offender gave his victim good cause to believe that he was armed with a lethal weapon. Within the totality of the circumstances you described, the offender would be seen as armed and dangerous, and a deadly force response by the victim would, in my opinion, be appropriate.

Remember that there are no guarantees.

Now this goes to the pre-emption we have been discussing.

Someone makes a move that you interpret as going for a weapon...would your training have conditioned to 'wait and see' so you can block it and take the weapon away?

The model also implicitly acknowledges that officers do not apply force options in consecutive steps or stages from the lowest force option to the highest, but rather they must select the an appropriate force option or combination of options available in the circumstances based upon their objectively-held (reasonable) perception.

So how does it work? Well, the model consists of an outer area or ring which represents the officer’s force response options. These options range from officer presence and communication skills through physical control the use of intermediate weapons and ultimately lethal force.13 As an offender’s level or degree of resistance increases creating an increased potential risk, officers may escalate the type and nature of force applied to ensure they are able to control the risk.

As the officer integrates all of these factors into the totality of circumstances in which he finds himself, he is enabled to undertake a reasonable use of force response and be able to articulate to others how the situation was perceived, assessed and responded to.

Remember that this process typically occurs in seconds or fractions of seconds and much like the driver of a vehicle facing a sudden emergency the courts recognize that allowances must be given for errors officer might make in the exigency of the moment.

In a 'karate' situation...say you get into an auto accident...the adverse driver gets out of his car/truck ...mad as hell at you for having messed up his brand new truck...with a baseball bat over his right shoulder coming straight at you as you get out of your car...yelling he is going to bust you up...there are only split seconds...trying to 'defuse' means trying talking to someone who is deaf because of the adrenaline dump...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum